Jump to content
Mooney228

Taking my handgun to my nj apartment

Recommended Posts

Typical NJ law ambiguaty.  First part is an open-ended "premises or other land owned" and the latter part defines specific transport exemptions non-inclusive of getting to all premises or other land. One thing for sure, that ambiguaty wont work in your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is most gun owners dissect the exemption(s) and attempt to apply the law to only THEMSELVES, instead of richer land owners with multiple properties and residences.  Some of us even think we can't have guns at our "shore house" to protect ourselves since the address for the shore house isn't our "voting address" or "permanent address".  Those terms of "voting" and "permanent" aren't written into the laws, but naive gun owners "write them in" THEMSELVES when conversing about NJ gun law.  Urban myths mixed with half-assed information leads to gross misinterpretation(s) that results in these same myths being promulgated upon new gun owners every day.

 

If we polled the membership here, at least 50% would apply some form of federal FOPA law for intrastate transport of firearms (ammo in a separate locked container).  When asked to tell you the DIFFERENCES between NJ gun law and FOPA, they can't.  Education is the key.  Understanding punctuation and the use of the word, "OR" goes a long way towards the meaning of, "COMMA, OR LOCKED IN THE TRUNK OF AN AUTOMOBILE".  It's absolutely mind-blowing to consider that some here think every Grand-pop or 18 yr old HS Kid with an O/U and a few loose boxes of birdshot in his car's trunk is a felon!

 

We must all work together to dispel these myths, educate gun owners and get them to fight back for their rights they've already lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont dis agree and you can dbl up on the confusion, mis-interpretation etc when applying all that to law enforcements streetside knowledge. You can bet that if you are unfortunate to have a "run in" with a leo chances are there will not be a friendly and casual grammatical dissertation. Leo will let the court figure it out on your time&dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I have a feeling that we have been down this road before ?.

We can read all we want on commas, ANDs, ORs, punctuation, Rich People who own multiple properties. At the end of the day, what matters is how a LEO, Judge and those 12 people in the box read it.

The way I read it, explicit and specific inclusion after a blanket exclusion implies any other variation of that inclusion is prohibited.

And likes of Nappen invoked that specific "moving between residences" in recent cases and tons of literature available to search on that subject. One particular case went as far as to evaluating if circumstances and other belongings  in the vehicle of defendant support the "moving" aspect.

We can argue until cows come home about how many properties one owns and how they get their firearms to those places. But that doesn't change what's written.

One thing I do agree. That every gun owner must read, understand and then decide for themselves instead of just taking myths and propagating them.

 

-----------

 

e.     Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person 
 
<<about keeping and carrying around within confines of the property, land, business, home>>
 
keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, 
 
or 
 
<<about transporting between various places>>
 
from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, 
from any place of purchase to
his residence or 
place of business, 
between his dwelling and his place of business, 
between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or 
between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair. 
 
 
For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nothing shall be construed........to his residence or place of business, between dwelling and place of business, and the one I really LOVE:  carrying about business, residence, premises (PLURAL!) OR OTHER LAND OWNED OR POSSESSED BY HIM, any firearm (so hand guns are Kosher!), COMMA, or from carrying the same blah, blah, blah...........Rosie,

 

The word "premises" IS plural of the word "premise" (a statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument), but in this context, I think the proper way to read "premises" is as singular : "a building and the area of land that it is on". Both definitions from Merriam-Webster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you all that I am extremely familiar with Brian Aitken and the bumbling first lawyer, as well as the Judge who was DISBARRED for not properly admitting evidence and charging the Jury.  Modern day "moving" in a "step and fetchit" schlep back and forth with your own sedan wasn't thought of when the law was written.  Back then you hired a moving company and did it over a single weekend.  If ONE person on that Jury knew about Jury Nullification, Aitken would have never been convicted.

 

I too looked-up premises and I read that it could include multiple apartments in the same building, multiple buildings on the same property (like a sprawling complex:  The Perp was thought to be still somewhere on the premises, so the Cops searched every building they could gain access too), etc.  Not trying to split hairs since it's not needed.  The fact of the matter remains, "other land or property owned or possessed by him" doesn't get interpreted as a residence, so the allowed firearm (doesn't specifically say long gun so hand guns are kosher) has to be DRIVEN to the said property unless a Helo drops it outta the sky and we learn to play catch, OR the gun owner arrives on horseback...........

 

I'll admit that folks aren't used to critical thinking.  Hell we even have folks with Pink Cards that still tell people that "hollow points are ILLEGAL"!  I'm also willing to admit that if you need to explain yourself and use an exemption, chances are you need a lawyer and not the same Schmuck that represented Aitken the first go-around.  Every gun owner needs to read and KNOW the law and be able to apply it.  Where most gun owners come up short is in the "applying part"....Part of the problem as I see it is that folks are chicken-shit scared to actually USE the rights available to them, and NO ONE is writing about THAT!

 

When Sandy hit over 3 years ago, lots of shore houses had guns in them, be they "permanent voting addresses" or just summer retreats (2nd and 3rd residences).  Firearms laws were "suspended" as gun owners were instructed to remove firearms from their residences and businesses and secure them in any other safe place.  Some of these safe places that were suggested by various Police Agencies:  your personal vehicle, locked and secured on high ground.  A friend's or relative's house where you're staying after being evacuated.  A motel or hotel room where you're staying due to evacuation.  So virtually ANY reasonably SAFE place where a reasonable person would believe that their firearms would remain in their care, custody and control.  Did ANYBODY hear of a Doctor, Lawyer, Wall Street Exec, etc. getting jammed-up because he had a safe with firearms in his 2nd or 3rd residence?  Me NEITHER.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still doesn't change what's written. In addition to what GOR mentioned "carrying about" is different from "carrying from to per g".

 

Carrying "about" restricts the carrying to the said entity, premises for example, without further requirements as to how it's carried.

 

Carrying from / to defines how it must be carried between (hence from / to) - as defined in "g".

 

There are no magical commas, or other language tricks that allows the contended transport scenario.

 

During disasters, emergencies, LE Agencies has great discretion in instructing general public against a written law, specially in the interest of public at large. But that cannot be used as justification for violating said law in other instances.

 

We all misread things, misinterpret things. And one can spend years doing that thing wihtout ever getting in trouble. It's ok as long as we learn and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Carrying about" implies rather succinctly that you're allowed to do just THAT.  So how does it (the firearm) get there?  Helo?  Beemed-over like on Star Trek?  Pony Express?  Why would the law be written to specifically INCLUDE "carrying about" OTHER LAND OWNED OR POSSESSED BY HIM if the same folks that wrote it never intended to provide a common sense solution for its' (the gun's) arrival to said property?  When is the last time Farmer Brown (or anybody else for that matter) got jammed-up while patrolling their properties with a gun?  I'm 56 years old and I don't recall it ever happening in my lifetime.  As left-wing as the MSM is in these parts, they'd have JUMPED on the chance to print names, dates and locations of gun owners with handcuffs on doin' the Perp Walk....  

 

We agree on 90% of what you typed above.  Sorry to disagree, but we'll have to just agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...